Posts about: "Engine Failure (All)" [Posts: 489 Pages: 25]

looks like a clean wing\x85\x85\x85too slow and sinking, doesn\x92t appear to be an Engine failure, no rudder applied\x85..

Indian press seems to be running with reports of power loss, double engine failure. Not sure how accurate it is, but the video doesn't sound like a large jet a full power considering you can hear a lot of ambient noise around. At the start of the video the body angle is definitely low, low like they are trying to stay unstalled, but then the nose rises as the ground approaches, as you would expect anyone to react.

No speculation as to what caused the crash, but a couple of points. If there was an inadvertent retraction of flaps instead of gear, this could potentially be remedied by reselecting flaps promptly once recognised. Whether the startle factor would allow it is another thing.

If the RAT is indeed out and there was some sort of powerplant issue, ie. double engine failure, I don't think I would be in a hurry to retract the gear either. In fact it may well have been put down again in that scenario.

Regardless, awful footage to watch. RIP.

Dual engine failure due to fuel contamination?

or birds?

At least one press report stating 'engine failure' was mentioned
Air India pilot said 'engine failure' in mayday call before horror crash | World | News | Express.co.uk

Not seen this anywhere else, and bearing in mind the source, I'd take as a huge pinch of salt, though with the RAT potentially deployed, there may be some credence

Like most Boeings, on the 787 you are prevented from selecting the flaps/slats all the way up in one go by the gate at flap 1. If this was a mis-selection by one of the pilots, they would have been prevented from selecting ALL the high lift devices up in one go by the flap 1 gate. Even if you manage to get the lever to the Flaps Up position then below 225kts you should get Slat-Gap protection which maintains MOST of the lift. I have never tried it personally but that's the operation as advertised by Boeing. Would that provide enough lift to save them...... that is really a matter of debate.

The aircraft may have suffered a power loss of one or both engines possibly by bird strike. I have to say that the B787 is the very easiest aircraft I have ever flown when handling an engine failure above V1. The flight path vector and the flight director in the head up display make finessing an engine failure absolute child's play. Having said that the Boeing 787 performance is calculated right to the limits of legal requirement, so there is no scope for mis-handling. If they failed to select the landing gear up, not due to a flap lever mis-selection, but some another distraction, like an engine failure, then the aircraft would struggle to accelerate to V2 to safely climb away.

The B787 derates are calculated to give an acceptable Vmca in the event of an engine failure. That is to say, if you apply any more power asymmetricly the Vmca criteria of up to 5deg of bank towards the live engine will require more control input resulting in more control drag. Our SOP was - If you need it - Use It! Thankfully I never had to find out.

By way of illustration, on the B747-400, leaving the gear down following an engine failure had the same effect as failing two of the four engines.

Double engine failure could point to a fuel problem (amongst many other potential causes).

A few have suggested double engine failure due to contaminated fuel, but we've seen historically that the equal likely (or perhaps more likely) reason for a double engine "failure" is accidental shutdown of the wrong engine.

787 gear and flaps/slats are both on the centre system, powered by 2x big electric pumps and no EDPs, so retraction should be minimally impacted by engine failure assuming electric power was still available and reconfiguration worked. Note the 787 has two generators per engine so generator failure is also unlikely to contribute, unless both engines failed taking out all four generators (and presumably no APU running).

From that thread, I believe it was discussed that on most/all other large transports, deploying the RAT re-powers the CVR/FDR. The 737 didn't have that happen because no RAT. You may still get a few second gap while the RAT deploys.

The 787 has 2x Enhanced Airborne Flight Recorders (EAFR), which each record both cockpit voice and flight data. I expect they are also fitted with the dedicated batteries that the Jeju was a year or two too early to require. Per the NTSB , the forward recorder has a 10-minute backup battery.

Hopefully flight data is not going to be an issue for this investigation.

The suggestion is that the buzzsaw/propeller sound is the RAT; it does sound a bit like an interference pattern, but you don't get the engine roar with it.

It's also maybe visible in a few stills (e.g. post 64).

True. We won\x92t know until the CVR and Flight Data recordings have been analysed. I think these will give a clear indication of what happened. The airport has reopened so I assume there\x92s no fuel contamination risk.

Just for the record, there is no system on modern Boeing aircraft to prevent the accidental retraction of flaps when too low or slow when airborne. You wouldn't even get a warning on Boeing aircraft that is related to Flaps, you'd eventually get one related to Low Speed or Stall. The Airbus has a safety feature called "Alpha-Lock" which physically stops the Flaps from moving when the AoA or speed? is deemed too low. But that's not a safety net for all flap settings, just the lowest for takeoff. It will save the day in 95% of situations though Mr Boeing (hint hint)

Takeoff config warnings and checklists may not have helped if the flap setting was not enough given the weight and conditions. A good handling pilot could recover from an incorrect flap setting (providing there's no obstacles to deal with), by gently lowering the nose allowing the airspeed to build up before resuming the climb. However, various human factors such as startle and over reliance on automation (my thrust setting must be good) will not help the situation.

In order of likelihood:

1.) Flaps moved instead of gear
2.) Incorrect Flap settings and inability of crew to recover from that
3.) Double engine failure
4.) Some electrical event that distracted them

Item 1) On the 787, is the gear lever on the main panel facing the flight crew, or on the centre console? I'd imagine they'd (flap and gear levers) need to be adjacent to each other for that to happen. All good points though.

Just to confirm.
The 787 is an aircraft which likes to, performance wise, use all of the available runway for takeoff. Sometimes you can be sat in the 787 and as you are rolling down the runway, you start wondering if Rotate has been called or not. It loves taking up all of the runway.

Nevertheless, there are some interesting speculations over on X. One guy even claimed the Captain was in the lavatory during the accident...

Many people have noted what appears to be the RAT deployed in the video footage suggesting dual engine failure. Possible wrong engine shutdown? But who diagnoses and actions an engine failure and shutdown below 400ft?

TE Flaps are extended, flap gaps between the wing and the flap element are observable. This is not an aberration of the spoiler position, you can see the nacelles through the gap, and that means the flap can not be in the retracted position.

An error of the TE flap deployed position, say between flaps 5 or 15 is not going to cause a stall event.

The flap has not been retracted instead of the gear.

Double engine failure... India. birds, always a latent threat. No rudder deflection, no aileron deflection, so it's not a SE problem, any engine issue is affecting both engines.

Pitch control and roll is not compromised in the video. The crew put out a mayday, not sounding like an electrical fault or distraction.

any funerals near by?

Incorrect TO thrust setting would not present in the video as recorded. Low thrust results in low acceleration, and extended distance to rotate. after rotate, low thrust results in low climb rate, and can result in the crew over pitching where the aircraft has obstructions that the crew have to avoid. the video appears to show the pitch increasing at a point where the aircraft is already unable to climb, not the other way round. An outside possibility.

For survivors, any from the aircraft will be a miracle, and mainly from the rear of the plane near door 3 area, if any. Plane is still striking tank traps at 70m/sec +, high ANU, it's not a high survivability event. Occupants in the buildings along the flight path will have a high fatality rate as well. This is going to be a high toll event in the aircraft and on the ground. Bad day at VAAH. RIP.

\x94 And ex senior pilot, Captain Saurabh Bhatnagar, said: "It looks, prima facie, like a case of multiple bird hits wherein both the engines have lost power. The take-off was perfect and just, I believe, short of taking the gear up, the aircraft started descending, which can happen only in case the engine loses power or the aircraft stops developing lift. Obviously, the investigation will reveal the exact reason."

Like the dual engine failures that occurred on every aircraft which took off before it, using the same fuel supply?

😩

In that video there's a large puff of dust as they become airborne... from that I'd assume they were very close to the end of the runway if not slightly past it. It looks like they barely had enough speed to get airborne, and what little speed they did have didn't take them very far. The big question is why they barely climbed... performance issue, engine failure, birdstrike? No idea.

That airport video shows an abrupt loss of lift with the aircraft pointing upwards the entire time which would explain (you know what). An engine failure would create some kind of yawing or change in pitch.

i believe the 787 automatically corrects for this yawing moment